Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

A few people have pointed out that the magazine has featured plenty of villains and criminals on its covers in the past, including Charles Manson in 1970. And the magazine (like other publications) only has a few photos of the man to choose from, which is why we've actually seen this image in several other places before, including The New York Times (and this website.) But the combination of Tsarnaev's casual, glamorous appearance with the famously "cool" magazine's attitude just isn't sitting well with most people.

Magazines go to GREAT lengths and give a lot of thought to what they are portraying. The glamourization here isn't even up for argument. It's a given.

Quoting FromAtoZ:

Quoting Mommabearbergh:

As a Bostonian and someone who lived through that week. I find it disrespectful. I am happy it won't be sold many places here. Who wants to see a glamorized shot of someone who may be responsible for the reason your missing a limb or your son is dead. We know terrorist can come from anywhere . I personally stand with the mayor of Boston with this one and a good chunk of the Bostonians who feel the same way

Rolling Stone has a history of high quality current events journalism.

I saw his face this morning bloodied with a laser dot in the middle of his forehead followed a commercial for Allstate Insurance. But that's okay, totally different? Nope.

Quoting Seasidegirl:

I think the differences are the pictures the news-oriented publications used and the purpose. Yes, ultimately, it is about selling magazines, but people want news. (Has his face before been the ONLY bomber face on the cover of a publication? I don't know.)

It's also because it's Rolling Stone, which is an entertainment-focused publication known for having rock stars on the cover (yes, I know they have serious stories, too). I can understand why people are thinking RS is trying to make the bomber into "rock star status." The photo is flattering. It really does look like he could be some cool rock dude kids look up to.

RS knew exactly what it was doing. They didn't do this just to provide info about the guy or his crimes. It's cheap. But it's not like I wouldn't expect it from a rag who had Manson on the cover or who way back when published -- wait, let me find the pics:

(underage Alicia Silverstone made to look even younger)

and...Daddy-daughter love:

This just takes their tastelessness and issues with class (and MO to "shock") to another level. I'm glad they're being called out on it.

Quoting UpSheRises:

Pretty sure we all saw his face plastered all over tvs and newspapers, right?

Magazines go to GREAT lengths and give a lot of thought to what they are portraying. The glamourization here isn't even up for argument. It's a given.

Quoting FromAtoZ:

Quoting Mommabearbergh:

As a Bostonian and someone who lived through that week. I find it disrespectful. I am happy it won't be sold many places here. Who wants to see a glamorized shot of someone who may be responsible for the reason your missing a limb or your son is dead. We know terrorist can come from anywhere . I personally stand with the mayor of Boston with this one and a good chunk of the Bostonians who feel the same way

I didn't read the article but right on the cover it calls him a monster. They picked that photo to sell magazines no doubt about it. It is glorifying him in a way, that's how these things are done. Rolling Stone is no worse than any other media and usually better because of the quality of the journalism.

To even be more realistic -- hey, and shocking -- RS could have used a photo of the bomber with a bloodied face. There is something below-the-belt about trying to portray him as sexy or rock-star-ish.

Quoting UpSheRises:

But for profit news doesnt?

Quoting Seasidegirl:

Magazines go to GREAT lengths and give a lot of thought to what they are portraying. The glamourization here isn't even up for argument. It's a given.

Quoting FromAtoZ:

Quoting Mommabearbergh:

As a Bostonian and someone who lived through that week. I find it disrespectful. I am happy it won't be sold many places here. Who wants to see a glamorized shot of someone who may be responsible for the reason your missing a limb or your son is dead. We know terrorist can come from anywhere . I personally stand with the mayor of Boston with this one and a good chunk of the Bostonians who feel the same way

I haven't been aware of other news outlets purposely trying to make him appear to be rock star-like. I honestly feel that that is the valid issue here.

RS does have some good current events journalism. Therefore, why go this cheapo route? They carried a story about priest sex abuse written by a guy I used to work with, and were amont the FIRST to carry such an article. Would it have been appropriate for them to put a sexy-looking priest on the cover for that issue, even though they were criticizing the Catholic church? Hell no.

Re: the Allstate insurance commercial, how ignorant of them. I haven't seen that. Not seeing what that has to do with this, though.

Quoting UpSheRises:

Tv news plastered him all over to make money too.

Rolling Stone has a history of high quality current events journalism.

I saw his face this morning bloodied with a laser dot in the middle of his forehead followed a commercial for Allstate Insurance. But that's okay, totally different? Nope.

Quoting Seasidegirl:

I think the differences are the pictures the news-oriented publications used and the purpose. Yes, ultimately, it is about selling magazines, but people want news. (Has his face before been the ONLY bomber face on the cover of a publication? I don't know.)

It's also because it's Rolling Stone, which is an entertainment-focused publication known for having rock stars on the cover (yes, I know they have serious stories, too). I can understand why people are thinking RS is trying to make the bomber into "rock star status." The photo is flattering. It really does look like he could be some cool rock dude kids look up to.

RS knew exactly what it was doing. They didn't do this just to provide info about the guy or his crimes. It's cheap. But it's not like I wouldn't expect it from a rag who had Manson on the cover or who way back when published -- wait, let me find the pics:

(underage Alicia Silverstone made to look even younger)

and...Daddy-daughter love:

This just takes their tastelessness and issues with class (and MO to "shock") to another level. I'm glad they're being called out on it.

Quoting UpSheRises:

Pretty sure we all saw his face plastered all over tvs and newspapers, right?

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.